The scribes and pharisees were constantly asking Him tricky questions to try and slip Him up. By telling the multitude to be more righteous than the pharisee not only in their teaching, but by example as well, He is denouncing the "OLD WAYS." The message of forgiveness, do unto others as you would have done unto you; these are all attempts to change the 'old' ways.

What are these "old ways" you speak of? The laws of the old testaments? If so, why did god set those up instead of the love & peace stuff in the first place?

Quote

Af far as Jesus and God being one, I believe they are, how else could He have found the courage to give His life so easily so that others may live.

God and Jesus are one and the same. Ok, we've got that established. Now, if Jesus is all about love & peace, why did he prescribe death for so many offenses in the OT? (including trivial nonsense, such as picking up stickes on the wrong day)

Quote

The "Ten Commandments" are God's laws. Don't see anything there so bad, and If mankind actually followed them, the World would be at peace.

What you've listed are not the ten commandments. They are:

1) Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God2) Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices3) Do not make any idols4) Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread5) The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.6) Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.7) Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.8 ) Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.9) Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.10) Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk

That's all exodus 34, the only place where those sets of rules are specifically called "the ten commandments". The ones in bold are what matches your list. Only a 30% match.

Oh, and apparently, god's real name is "Jealous". How strange.

Quote

1.Thou shalt have no other God before me.2.Thou shalt not worship idols.3.Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.4.Honor the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy5.Honor thy Father and Mother6.Thou shalt not Kill7.No adultery8.No stealing9.No lying10.Do not covet

I see nothing harmful here at all.

The first four are junk. They're nothing more than Mr. Jealous' self-centerness. The rest are decent, but could be improved on. How about "do not rape", "do not molest children", or "help the poor"?

Quote

Moses goes on to distort God's Commandments, which I believe is the "real" reason Moses was not allowed into the Promised Land. That is if this story is true. This story was my first indication that the Bible had man's footprint all over it. No way would an intelligent , powerful God make such obvious contradictions.

What part of the bible is about Moses "distorting" god's commandments?

If he is real, and you believe in him, jb, then he is partially successful. But if he is real and I don't believe in him, then he's doing a pretty lousy job of being a deity. I'm not dead set against gods or anything, I just don't see even one iota of evidence that even just kinda, sorta hints that maybe, just maybe, he might be at least a little tiny bit real.

There are many religions, many writings, many variations, many excuses, but none combine their various tidbits of information into a story that I can accept, or even just suspect might be true. None of the old stories (and that's all we've got, documentation-wise) match with the reality I live in, and hence I reject them carte blanche.

Yep, if he wants to be believed in, he needs to be believable. The stories of his glory, etc. need to match reality and experience. For everyone. Or else, as you can see, some of us are going to remain mighty suspicious of the whole thing.

If I'm wrong about being an atheist, it is some gods fault, not mine.

This is why I say it is not easy to believe in God. Perhaps your purpose in life is to challenge mans definition of God. You and I are on the same mission in that respect. You know I can tell when I view religious programming these days, that the Atheist has been an influence on doctrine. I learn so much from you guys about my own beliefs, it's incredible! Like you ask me questions I have not thought to ask myself, not all your questions, I have asked myself some of the same questions you all ask, and in my modest attempt to answer them for you I answer them for myself also. I would view this as God's work and evidence as to believability, but I do understand that you all being who you are it will take much more.

Logged

LOOK DEEP INTO NATURE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BETTER...ALBERT EINSTEIN

It depends on what you mean by "bad". As W. K. Clifford said: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

Quote

As long as there is a shred of hope that life after death exists, this is the path I must follow, I long to see my mother again in a land without pain, fear, or sadness.

What has your desire to survive death got to do with a god? Why can't you simply hope for seeing your mother again after death? Why is a god required?

If you accept the fact (and I hope you do) that we humans are a part of the evolutionary tree of life which has evolved in the last 3.5 billion years on this 4.5 billion year old planet, please explain why you would believe that we survive death somehow.

Quote

Yes I know that most people here have done just that, but until you've heard every story, mine included, how can the investigation be over.

Ironically, it is the theist who has declared the investigation "over".

Faith does not give you the answers; it just stops you asking the questions. (Frater Ravus)

Quote

There are a lot of "good" people believing in God, will you condemn the righteous along with the unrighteous.

Again, ironically it is the theist who has historically been in the "condemning" role. We're not condemning anyone, just placing wild, supernatural claims & assertions under critical, rational and honest scrutiny to see if they hold up; you know, to see if they're true or not. I care more about what is true over what might be comforting; I respectfully suggest that you develop the same appetite.

Those are some very challenging questions No.. I base my opinion, and that's all it is an opinion, on the human spirit. When the human spirit is nurtured, good things happen, when it is used and abused they do not. Does the body not release the spirit when it passes. I know it does, I have felt it. I'm sure you believe that it was some chemicals from my brain, and who's to say that's not possible, I'm aware that it is, I would just have to believe that was part of God's design.

I'm not trying to say I believe God's physical form lives inside, but rather His spirit, which does stay with us after death. I'm much too humble to think I could prove anything to you. All I have is my testimony, my story, and I know I would not have come this far had it not been for the Grace of God.

Your use of the words 'opinion' and 'know' is a bit convoluted. Actually, it's really just the use of the word 'know'...perhaps you mean to say something like:"Does the body not release the spirit when it passes. I think it does, I have felt it."That jives a little better with a "I base my opinion, and that's all it is an opinion" view.

Thanks for the wise words. I just came to share my story;give God some credit. To show an unbeliever that not all believers are hateful and judgemental. That's all.

I'm uncertain about others here, but I pretty much assume that the vast majority of believers are not hateful and judgmental. What I assume is that all believers are making claims regarding objective reality, the same objective reality that we all share, that do not appear to be true. Now, when it comes to the existence of god, I readily admit I could be wrong and god does exist. Hell, if I had to put together a list of all the crap I thought I know and was wrong about over the years, I'd run out of hard drive space. But how am I supposed to correct my errors in understanding of reality if I don't talk through and argue about it with those who disagree with me? How do we, as a society, increase our understanding of anything if we do not engage each other with our disagreements on reality?

Look, junebug72 and LoriPinkAngel - I get the whole 'coexist' thing. Really, I do. I'm a fan of peace and with people getting along. I'm a fan of people respecting other people. But let's face it; we're a bunch of anonymous people on the interweb talking over a forum. Very, very, very little risk that anything but four letter words and insults being tossed around. I just don't see any harm in starting arguments. I get that you're not here to convert, and I respect that, but look...I, as well as most everyone else, has a vested interested in reality. A good, accurate understanding of reality is pretty beneficial to navigating through reality. You are both expressing claims about objective reality that seem false. If they are not false, that means that I am believing incorrect things about objective reality, and I would like to be corrected.

When I participate in this forum, it isn't to win or anything like that. It is simply a part of my never-ending search for understanding reality. Even aside from all of the socio-political ramifications of 'belief vs. non-belief' and all that jazz, I just kind of want to know if god exists in the same way that I just kind of want to know if neutrinos, the Higgs boson, white holes, Atlantis, and the Emperor of Mexico exist. Refusing to argue about it just seems to...devalue truth - yes, strong words and I have no other reason to believe that you value truth any less than I do, but that's just the way it seems.

Basically, I'm just personally not a fan of this ecumenical "let's all just let everyone believe what they want to believe and not argue about it" thing. Again, big fan of people getting along, big fan of people not hurting each other or being mean to each other, but not a big fan of "well, someone might disagree so let's not engage and attempt to further our understanding of the world around us so that we can hopefully make better decisions about how reality affects us and every sentient creature around us" thing.

So let's go ahead and argue. No need for any mean-spiritedness or anything, but let's put our disagreements about reality on the table and see if any truth falls out of arguing our positions. You're not interested in converting anyone? That's fine; I respect that. But if god does indeed exist, then I'm interested in converting me.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

just a thought, June, but I wondered if there is a sense in which hoping for a life after death where one meets people one has known is really such a healthy thing. I'd love to meet again people I have known in the past - parents included - but even if I thought this had a realistic chance of happening, I would not consider it a priority.

At 64, I have lived quite a lot of my life now and who knows how long I have to go. I've even spend nearly half my life sat in a wheelchair too though that's a side issue. What I am concerned about is what I am going to do now and into the future until I die. Now the last thing I want to do is to believe a whole load of things based on the premise I might meet family and friends in the next life. The reason for this is that I have family and friends here and now and I have a life to lead and useful things to do for all sorts of people. Rather than get bogged down in what happens after I die I want to enjoy and be useful NOW.

Ok, even if one is a Christian who know which way one might go after death? Who knows where one's family is - heaven or hell? So even if we all go on to another life we might still not meet the people we want to. That's why I say to live for now. I've been trying to do it for 30 years and it seems to work fine! Leave ideas of what might happen after we die for that time - after all no one knows what will happen though the smart money is on death ebing the end of our existence.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I've been busy reading all the replies to my post and I will have to say that you guys raise incredibly valid points. I do not disagree that religion can be dangerous. I guess that's why I get defensive when someone calls me religious. I don't feel very dangerous. IMO The difference in you and me is I see it all as mankind's failure to God, you see it as God's.

I don't think any of this mess is God's will. I guess that's why I can believe He loves us when you can not even believe God's real and use the pain and suffering in the world to promote that belief.

The point I was trying to make in the beginning of this thread is that God is not religion. That there are people out there like myself that are spiritual with no attachments to "organized religion." Furthermore, that all religious types are not extremist, but rather hard working, loving people just trying to live a meaningful life. Not to say not being religious or spiritual makes you all's life less meaningful. I'm just saying they mean just as well as you do.

May I ask you all a question? Guess I just did, since God doesn't exist and He's not going to save us,because He's not there, How did we get in this mess and How are we going to get out? Two Questions, sorry.

Logged

LOOK DEEP INTO NATURE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BETTER...ALBERT EINSTEIN

Alone, you aren't. Just like one family that refuses to get their children vaccinated is not dangerous. In herds, however, the religious are the second most destructive force in society. The first most destructive force being stupidity. And religion promotes stupidity.

The difference in you and me is I see it all as mankind's failure to God, you see it as God's.

You have fundamentally misunderstood every point made to you. We do not see it as god's failure. God is imaginary, so god cannot be said to be at fault for anything. When we raise points about x, y, or z being god's responsibility, we are speaking from your perspective, pointing out how, if god is real, then he's not as good or competent as you think. We try to explain to you that if god exists, there are the logical conclusions you have not grasped.

IMO The difference in you and me is I see it all as mankind's failure to God, you see it as God's.

No June, we don't. We don't believe your god, or any gods exist at all. When we talk about the failures of your god, we are suspending our disbelief just for the sake of conversation.

Quote

May I ask you all a question? Guess I just did, since God doesn't exist and He's not going to save us,because He's not there, How did we get in this mess and How are we going to get out? Two Questions, sorry.

What mess? Life?

We got here because a sperm fertilized an egg. We get out when we die.

It depends on what you mean by "bad". As W. K. Clifford said: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

No harm has ever come to anybody because I believe in God.

What is insufficient to you is not to me. When we talk about evidence I have these thoughts; the Amazingness of it all. Like I was watching a documentary called, "How the Earth Was Made", it was explaining how the earth's atmosphere protects the Earth from harmful radiation from the sun. I believe we all can agree this is a fact. I can't reconcile that is coincidently there, it is there out of necessity. Without it we could not survive on this planet. Without God, to me, it seems like it's all just a big coincidence. God gives me purpose, a reason for it all.

God does not solve every mystery of the universe for me. There is a lot of mystery that comes with believing in God. You don't just say well I believe and leave it at that, at least not in my case, it is a journey, a quest if I may.

What has your desire to survive death got to do with a god? Why can't you simply hope for seeing your mother again after death? Why is a god required?

If you accept the fact (and I hope you do) that we humans are a part of the evolutionary tree of life which has evolved in the last 3.5 billion years on this 4.5 billion year old planet, please explain why you would believe that we survive death somehow.

God is required because God created it. Without God there is no heaven?

These are the facts that led me away from Christianity and revealed the Bible for what it is to me, work of man.

Ironically, it is the theist who has declared the investigation "over".

Faith does not give you the answers; it just stops you asking the questions. (Frater Ravus)

Again, ironically it is the theist who has historically been in the "condemning" role. We're not condemning anyone, just placing wild, supernatural claims & assertions under critical, rational and honest scrutiny to see if they hold up; you know, to see if they're true or not. I care more about what is true over what might be comforting; I respectfully suggest that you develop the same appetite.

I will have to disagree with you on that star. Like I said earlier, for me, it poses it's own questions. Self discovery is all any of us here seem to be after, I know that is my motivation. That is a never ending journey.

I will agree fer sure that Christians do way too much judging. Jesus tells these people not to and they do it anyway. I don't get it either.

Logged

LOOK DEEP INTO NATURE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BETTER...ALBERT EINSTEIN

Your use of the words 'opinion' and 'know' is a bit convoluted. Actually, it's really just the use of the word 'know'...perhaps you mean to say something like:"Does the body not release the spirit when it passes. I think it does, I have felt it."That jives a little better with a "I base my opinion, and that's all it is an opinion" view.

Yo dawg, You most definitely have the right to not believe I experienced something spiritual and beautiful at the passing of my loved ones. Those were all very significant experiences in my life, and I think it most cold hearted of you to belittle it this way. You know I could take your sentences move some words around and twist it. I meant to say I know, and I stand by that.

I'm uncertain about others here, but I pretty much assume that the vast majority of believers are not hateful and judgmental. What I assume is that all believers are making claims regarding objective reality, the same objective reality that we all share, that do not appear to be true. Now, when it comes to the existence of god, I readily admit I could be wrong and god does exist. Hell, if I had to put together a list of all the crap I thought I know and was wrong about over the years, I'd run out of hard drive space. But how am I supposed to correct my errors in understanding of reality if I don't talk through and argue about it with those who disagree with me? How do we, as a society, increase our understanding of anything if we do not engage each other with our disagreements on reality?

I think it's going to take more than arguing. Have we not argued enough already. Does there never come a time when we can just agree to disagree and that be okay?Words are the most powerful force. I live by the philosophy "Be Impeccable With Your Word." It has been a while, but it is based on ancient Toltec knowledge. The book is called "The Four Agreements...A Practical Guide To Personal Freedom (A Toltec Wisdom Book)" This book changed my life more than the Bible ever did.

Look, junebug72 and LoriPinkAngel - I get the whole 'coexist' thing. Really, I do. I'm a fan of peace and with people getting along. I'm a fan of people respecting other people. But let's face it; we're a bunch of anonymous people on the interweb talking over a forum. Very, very, very little risk that anything but four letter words and insults being tossed around. I just don't see any harm in starting arguments. I get that you're not here to convert, and I respect that, but look...I, as well as most everyone else, has a vested interested in reality. A good, accurate understanding of reality is pretty beneficial to navigating through reality. You are both expressing claims about objective reality that seem false. If they are not false, that means that I am believing incorrect things about objective reality, and I would like to be corrected.

Basically, I'm just personally not a fan of this ecumenical "let's all just let everyone believe what they want to believe and not argue about it" thing. Again, big fan of people getting along, big fan of people not hurting each other or being mean to each other, but not a big fan of "well, someone might disagree so let's not engage and attempt to further our understanding of the world around us so that we can hopefully make better decisions about how reality affects us and every sentient creature around us" thing.

So let's go ahead and argue. No need for any mean-spiritedness or anything, but let's put our disagreements about reality on the table and see if any truth falls out of arguing our positions. You're not interested in converting anyone? That's fine; I respect that. But if god does indeed exist, then I'm interested in converting me.

At this point I really think we, I mean the world, should try and focus on what we can agree on not so much what we can't. I certainly don't think arguing with someone that pays more attention to how something is written instead of the content is going to help anybody. The only thing you proved with your twist of vocabulary is how insulting you can be.

Logged

LOOK DEEP INTO NATURE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BETTER...ALBERT EINSTEIN

Point being? You seem to feel that it is only if harm is done, then that validates a “belief” being untenable. I suggest that you are quite wrong about that. Sure, you could live your entire life holding false and delusional beliefs without harming anyone, but shouldn’t that be viewed as a colossal waste? I also suggest that you spend some time reading here:

Well, if you are in possession of good evidence of this invisible father figure of yours, please……do tell, for the entire scientific community would love to know.

Quote

When we talk about evidence I have these thoughts; the Amazingness of it all. Like I was watching a documentary called, "How the Earth Was Made", it was explaining how the earth's atmosphere protects the Earth from harmful radiation from the sun. I believe we all can agree this is a fact.

The amazingness of it all is not evidence for a god. It is merely you finding it all amazing. You’re engaging in the same error that all theists do, you’re starting with your conclusion, and then going from there. This is backwards. It reminds me of the adage: “Gods are the finish line which are drawn at the start.” What one needs to do is start from a completely neutral starting point, and go from there. If there is good evidence to support a god belief, then that’s fine, but when you do start from that neutral starting point and only hold god belief when it is a confirmed observation, you will never wind-up with god belief, because there is no evidence for a god or gods. Gods were primitive mans "first guess" at his own existence and the world around him. We now know better.

Quote

I can't reconcile that is coincidently there, it is there out of necessity.

Again, you are looking at it backwards. The reason the people on Neptune aren’t wondering about their existence is because they don’t exist; and they don’t exist because the conditions for life have not occurred there. The conditions for life did come together here (and it is all just chemistry), and here we are, along with disease, infections, plagues, and even worse….country music.

We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer, but none exists. (Stephen Jay Gould)

Quote

Without it we could not survive on this planet.

I agree. What is your point?

Quote

Without God, to me, it seems like it's all just a big coincidence.

And what’s wrong with that? Unlikely events happen every day.

“Human life is the result of a glorious evolutionary accident". (Stephen J. Gould)

Quote

God gives me purpose, a reason for it all.

What such a belief does for you is irrelevant. I suggest that if you did not hold god-belief, you would continue in your life as the loving, compassionate person that you likely are. Supernatural nonsense is not required. Please understand that I was once in your shoes. I was born & raised in a Christian home, and was a very real Christian until my mid-twenties.

“If someone were to prove to me, right this minute, that god, in all his luminousness, exists, it wouldn't change a single aspect of my behavior.” (Luis Bunuel)

Quote

God is required because God created it. Without God there is no heaven?

Why? If you can’t fathom the universe or a heaven without some sort of creator, then you must also apply that to your god – what created him/it?

Quote

These are the facts that led me away from Christianity and revealed the Bible for what it is to me, work of man.

What criteria did you use to determine what is true and what is false? Feelings? Intuition? Or evidence?

Quote

Jesus tells these people not to (judge) and they do it anyway.

No. There’s not one thing that anyone can know what the Jesus character ever might have said. Everything that was placed upon his lips was written decades after his alleged life. (Yes, that’s right, it’s quite possible that Jesus never actually existed, but that’s a whole other topic).

I'll properly respond what you've said to me later on when I have more time, but reading this has irked me quite a bit, because I do not feel I have, at all, belittled, insulted, or summarily dismissed you in any way. I'd actually like to ask some of the others here if I'm just blind to what I'm saying and have done any of those things. LoriPinkAngel, particularly, I'd like to know if you feel I've been insulting, belitting, or disingenuous at all as you probably view posts a little more closely to the way junebug72 sees things (compared to some of the other members here I guess).

Your use of the words 'opinion' and 'know' is a bit convoluted. Actually, it's really just the use of the word 'know'...perhaps you mean to say something like:"Does the body not release the spirit when it passes. I think it does, I have felt it."That jives a little better with a "I base my opinion, and that's all it is an opinion" view.

Yo dawg, You most definitely have the right to not believe I experienced something spiritual and beautiful at the passing of my loved ones. Those were all very significant experiences in my life, and I think it most cold hearted of you to belittle it this way. You know I could take your sentences move some words around and twist it. I meant to say I know, and I stand by that.

I'm uncertain about others here, but I pretty much assume that the vast majority of believers are not hateful and judgmental. What I assume is that all believers are making claims regarding objective reality, the same objective reality that we all share, that do not appear to be true. Now, when it comes to the existence of god, I readily admit I could be wrong and god does exist. Hell, if I had to put together a list of all the crap I thought I know and was wrong about over the years, I'd run out of hard drive space. But how am I supposed to correct my errors in understanding of reality if I don't talk through and argue about it with those who disagree with me? How do we, as a society, increase our understanding of anything if we do not engage each other with our disagreements on reality?

I think it's going to take more than arguing. Have we not argued enough already. Does there never come a time when we can just agree to disagree and that be okay?Words are the most powerful force. I live by the philosophy "Be Impeccable With Your Word." It has been a while, but it is based on ancient Toltec knowledge. The book is called "The Four Agreements...A Practical Guide To Personal Freedom (A Toltec Wisdom Book)" This book changed my life more than the Bible ever did.

Look, junebug72 and LoriPinkAngel - I get the whole 'coexist' thing. Really, I do. I'm a fan of peace and with people getting along. I'm a fan of people respecting other people. But let's face it; we're a bunch of anonymous people on the interweb talking over a forum. Very, very, very little risk that anything but four letter words and insults being tossed around. I just don't see any harm in starting arguments. I get that you're not here to convert, and I respect that, but look...I, as well as most everyone else, has a vested interested in reality. A good, accurate understanding of reality is pretty beneficial to navigating through reality. You are both expressing claims about objective reality that seem false. If they are not false, that means that I am believing incorrect things about objective reality, and I would like to be corrected.

Basically, I'm just personally not a fan of this ecumenical "let's all just let everyone believe what they want to believe and not argue about it" thing. Again, big fan of people getting along, big fan of people not hurting each other or being mean to each other, but not a big fan of "well, someone might disagree so let's not engage and attempt to further our understanding of the world around us so that we can hopefully make better decisions about how reality affects us and every sentient creature around us" thing.

So let's go ahead and argue. No need for any mean-spiritedness or anything, but let's put our disagreements about reality on the table and see if any truth falls out of arguing our positions. You're not interested in converting anyone? That's fine; I respect that. But if god does indeed exist, then I'm interested in converting me.

At this point I really think we, I mean the world, should try and focus on what we can agree on not so much what we can't. I certainly don't think arguing with someone that pays more attention to how something is written instead of the content is going to help anybody. The only thing you proved with your twist of vocabulary is how insulting you can be.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

.....reading this has irked me quite a bit, because I do not feel I have, at all, belittled, insulted, or summarily dismissed you in any way. I'd actually like to ask some of the others here if I'm just blind to what I'm saying and have done any of those things. LoriPinkAngel, particularly, I'd like to know if you feel I've been insulting, belitting, or disingenuous at all as you probably view posts a little more closely to the way junebug72 sees things (compared to some of the other members here I guess).

If I had been, I earnestly apologize. But I just don't see how I was.

Jdawg70, you must realize that in this day & age of political correctness, people’s feelings & beliefs are more tender, delicate and sensitive than ever, and when their baseless assertions are scrutinized and found lacking in evidence, taking offense is all they've got left. The Muslims have this down to an art-form with their hair-trigger claims of offence. This of course is a recipe for being lost in a sea of whatever one wants to believe, and embracing a raft of delusional nonsense.

No great thinker was ever celebrated for his unbelievable ability to 'respect' everyone’s awful ideas and defer to those who held them. The highest respect one can pay to another’s idea is to scrutinize it and explain what might be wrong. This is what 'respect' means in the intellectual domain." (Spencer Mulesky)

You are very religious, but you do not conform to an organized religion.

Why must you insult me? Have I hurt you in some way? I am spiritual and if you would look that up you would see the difference. I do not worship, I do not organize. It is my own "private" thoughts I share with. Quite frankly I'm growing tired of the word game. I think I know better who and what I am than you do.

Alone, you aren't. Just like one family that refuses to get their children vaccinated is not dangerous. In herds, however, the religious are the second most destructive force in society. The first most destructive force being stupidity. And religion promotes stupidity.

I will disagree with you on that, the most dangerous force in society is greed. Greed is a lot more dangerous than stupidity. Greed is what has turned religion into the cesspool we're both familiar with.

You have fundamentally misunderstood every point made to you. We do not see it as god's failure. God is imaginary, so god cannot be said to be at fault for anything. When we raise points about x, y, or z being god's responsibility, we are speaking from your perspective, pointing out how, if god is real, then he's not as good or competent as you think. We try to explain to you that if god exists, there are the logical conclusions you have not grasped.

But if there is an all powerful god, it must be. Because if he willed it otherwise, it would be so.

What mess?

Oh you know what I mean. Poverty, violence,etc...

I give that right back to you screw. You're the one missing the point. The fact that you insist on proving me to be religious is evidence of that. I have no traditional ties to what your concept of a believer is, well not all of it, these questions you all keep asking me does not prove God doesn't exist to me. To me there is really only way to prove it's not possible and by then none of us are able to speak because we're dead. I see the value in faith, you don't, and that's okay with me. I am certainly not going to use that as a reason to insult you, or think that I'm better than you because I got it all figured out, I know I don't have it all figured out. I try to be humble and when I fail I feel guilty.

Logged

LOOK DEEP INTO NATURE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BETTER...ALBERT EINSTEIN

junebug, I think it would be could for you to define your terms "religious" and "spiritual".

To me, the word spiritual drives me bonkers. With its root word "spirit", it implies that one believes that we have a "spirit" (or soul). There is no good evidence or reason for holding this belief. We are part of the animal kingdom, and the idea that we are separate from it is based on ignorance and/or ego. If one doesn't believe that we have "spirits", then the word is meaningless.

But what I find that most people really mean when they say "spiritual" is that they lean towards being sensitive, compassionate, loving, kind etc. These are good attributes that I also aspire to, but no supernatural nonsense is required.

Point being? You seem to feel that it is only if harm is done that validates a “belief” being untenable. I suggest that you are quite wrong about that. Sure, you could live your entire life holding false and delusional beliefs without harming anyone, but shouldn’t that be viewed as a colossal waste? I also suggest that you spend some time reading here:

No that's not my point. My point is simply, I'm not dangerous and believing in God is not dangerous. I checked out the website and I didn't see my name there star. I didn't see spirituality there either.

If that belief of mine motivates me to help others and love people with all my heart, no I don't see my life being a colossal waste.

Quote

Well, if you are in possession of good evidence of this invisible father figure of yours, please……do tell, for the entire scientific community would love to know.

The amazingness of it all is not evidence for a god. It is merely you finding it all amazing. You’re engaging in the same error that all theists do, you’re starting with your conclusion, and then going from there. This is backwards.

It is not hard evidence it is circumstantial, and there is quite a bit of that, IMO.

Quote

Again, you are looking at it backwards. The reason the people on Neptune aren’t wondering about their existence is because they don’t exist; and they don’t exist because the conditions for life have not occurred there. The conditions for life did come together here (and it is all just chemistry), and here we are, along with disease, infections, plagues, and even worse….country music.

Prove it. Have you seen any of these things with your own eyes? Why here and not Neptune? We are so lucky that our little planet landed right exactly in all that space where it needed to be. That's not chemistry, that's miraculous.

Quote

We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer, but none exists. (Stephen Jay Gould)

I've never seen a fish turn human. You ask me to believe this stuff and yet you're so adamantly convinced I'm wrong. You seem to believe as blindly as you accuse me of.

I do feel we both are critical thinkers, and I get the point how a lack of it no matter what you believe can turn something that at it's core is meant to be good into something that's not.

Quote

I agree. What is your point?

That the atmosphere, and all the miracles of life, are not coincidental accidents. That it is the result of intelligent Creation.

Quote

“Human life is the result of a glorious evolutionary accident". (Stephen J. Gould)

unbelievable

Quote

What such a belief does for you is irrelevant. I suggest that if you did not hold god-belief, you would continue in your life as the loving, compassionate person that you likely are. Supernatural nonsense is not required. Please understand that I was once in your shoes. I was born & raised in a Christian home, and was a very real Christian until my mid-twenties.

It may be irrelevant to you, but it's certainly not to me.

Quote

“If someone were to prove to me, right this minute, that god, in all his luminousness, exists, it wouldn't change a single aspect of my behavior.” (Luis Bunuel)

There is no way such an experience would not change the way we think, feel, all of it. Just no way. For one as far as Atheists are concerned it would certainly change your mind about God's existence, which would change everything you all ever thought to be true.

For every man woman and child there would be no more doubts, and you will probably not convince me that the wicked hearts would not turn away from their evil with God standing before them.

Quote

Why? If you can’t fathom the universe or a heaven without some sort of creator, then you must also apply that to your god – what created him/it?

There lies the mystery I mentioned earlier. I do believe this knowledge is withheld for a very good reason. I don't believe that mankind could be trusted with such incredible knowledge.

Quote

What criteria did you use to determine what is true and what is false? Feelings? Intuition? Or evidence?

All of the above. I used all tools in my arsenal of tools.

Quote

No. There’s not one thing that anyone can know what the Jesus character ever might have said. Everything that was placed upon his lips was written decades after his alleged life. (Yes, that’s right, it’s quite possible that Jesus never actually existed, but that’s a whole other topic).

Valid point, but something certainly happened in that time period that definitely changed the course of history.

Logged

LOOK DEEP INTO NATURE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BETTER...ALBERT EINSTEIN

I'll properly respond what you've said to me later on when I have more time, but reading this has irked me quite a bit, because I do not feel I have, at all, belittled, insulted, or summarily dismissed you in any way. I'd actually like to ask some of the others here if I'm just blind to what I'm saying and have done any of those things. LoriPinkAngel, particularly, I'd like to know if you feel I've been insulting, belitting, or disingenuous at all as you probably view posts a little more closely to the way junebug72 sees things (compared to some of the other members here I guess).

If I had been, I earnestly apologize. But I just don't see how I was.

I let that one get to me and that's my fault. It's just that statement you tore apart, is sensitive material, it left me vulnerable, because it is so personal. I felt that spirit I mentioned at the passing of my cherished loved ones deathbeds and to me for you to make fun of it was disrespectful.

I understand you were just making your point and was not so much aware that I was speaking of the loss of my entire family.

Logged

LOOK DEEP INTO NATURE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BETTER...ALBERT EINSTEIN

It is pointless to argue with the SBNR, they make up their own rules, concepts and a lot of other stuff that has a meaning only in the individual's mind. It is almost like saying that I am a fan of soccer, but I dont follow any club/country/series, I just love the design of the balls[1]

Junebug, I see most of your issue is caused by atheists shitting on religion - understandably you then apply this gracious gesture to yourself. The key here is making the difference between the individual and religion. I assume you are a good person until proven otherwise. It would be horribly rude and condescending to do otherwise. I have no idea whether you murder, rape and then eat babies with a side dish of kittens. If you do, you should probably stop that. [1] You probably try to minimize the suffering caused to others and strive to make a positive difference in their lives, which is commendable. Your deity of choice may or may not play a role in this, but the effects may be a net positive to yourself and society.

Religion, on the other hand is quite different. It does not rely on objective analysis of the world we live in, preferring sacred texts and unverifiable subjective personal experience. Some people might observe the natural world, then say "This is definitely the work of Lady Morgan, Queen of the Living and Unliving, born of Storm and Flame". His views may be distorted by reading her holy books before of after his observation. But this should be absolutely meaningless if he cannot supply enough empirical evidence in defense of his claims. His subjective reasoning might be shared of others - in various proportions. Some might beg to differ, saying Lady Morgan only rules over the Living while her consort and avatar among mortals, Thun'der Snoeflayke of Buttlover is Lord of the Unliving. Many others would disbelieve altogether, citing lack of evidence for either scenario. This, in my opinion is the best attitude to have regarding the supernatural - I mean no offense here, but what is definitely real to you sounds like a crappy fantasy novel to me.

There are many atheists who are spiritual. Not to say they believe in the supernatural, but rather have a feeling of wonder when they look at the world around them with a dash of poetry, pretty words and feelings in the mix. While I wouldn't describe myself as such, whenever I look at the night sky and think about the sheer size of our universe and how we came to be on this planet I feel both small and large. Small because I'm just a meaningless mammal that will die in a few decades best case scenario. My entire lifespan isn't worth a damn when taking into account our planet, let alone the universe. The cosmos didn't give much of a damn when I was born and it will continue doing so way past the day I die. All that I am - my thoughts, determined by past experiences and a crapshot at the genetic lottery - is ultimately meaningless in the grand scale of things. However, each atom in my body came from the great furnaces of the stars themselves. They were here when the big bang happened. The oxygen in my bloodstream might have entered the lungs of famous persons, the carbon essential to my biological existence is guaranteed to have been part of multiple previous organisms which may or may not have been humans. I am part of a long evolutionary chain which could be traced back to abiogenesis and although I have chosen not to have children, I am the result of a struggle for existence which has been going on for the past ~3.5 billion years, from the simplest self replicating RNA molecules to my parents and grandparents. After I die, the elements that constitute my body will continue existing, following the same cycle. As I decomposed either thermically or by the action of bacteria, the ecosystem's primary producers will recycle them and it will all start over again. This is what I believe makes me great.

My apologies for rambling, I tend to do that quite a lot. I'll steer this wall o' text and death into a more relevant direction, that of religion.

I won't beat around the bush - it's harmful. As I said, you are probably a positive influence in the lives of others, which I'll continue to call 'a good person' despite the horrible subjectivity of good and evil. Bear with me for the sake of ease in writing.

In my country, the church is a financial behemoth. Earning more money than McDonald's[2] from their comercial activities and tax exemption, they still receive hefty financial aid from the state. While hospitals shut down due to the lack of funding, new churches are always built using state funds. The overwhelming majority of priests drive expensive cars and live in lavish houses. The few charities they do, help is always given with a good dose of proselytism. Religion classes are optional, but opt-out instead of opt-in and the few students that are aware might be stonewalled by the bureaucratic mess required, obtuse secretaries and principals who might even deny their requests unless threatened with higher authority. The classes themselves are taught either by an Orthodox priest or someone who has studied Orthodoxism. You can be sure the curriculum isn't structured on comparative analysis of different religions and philosophical debate. Politicians and the priests are so closely intertwined, the Patriarch can literally bitch to the Parliament about the laws he dislikes and they'll be changed - this is what happened last time we tried to take the church out of schools. He literally wrote a letter of complaint and it miraculously happened. Recently a member of the Parliament suggested that we maybe shouldn't cart so much money over to the church and follow the German model of a portion of people's taxes going to either their church of choice or NGOs. Of course he got shat on even by his own party by daring to suggest we should respect the constitution outlining us a secular state. People are encouraged to vote on socially regressive legislation which limits freedom and rights, hold intolerant views and discriminate Because the preacher God Almighty(TM) said so. This is only part of what goes on in the piece of paradise known as Romania, and I'm not even going near the classics such as religious wars, the Inquisition, child molesting priests and the violent murder of non believers.

You might have said to yourself "What the fuck, slow down, that's only organized religion! Some people keep it to themselves, isn't that a-ok?"

No, it's not ok. As I said, religion by itself is not based on objective, empirically measurable data. Combined with a high percentage of the population holding such views it becomes the norm. I'll latch onto the previously given example of Santa - when not only mom and dad but also many people believe in him, kids are less likely to question it. Some might do so and come to a conclusion quite different than their parents. They would either come to terms with their non belief and the fact that they risk being ostracized or rationalize themselves back into the fold desiring security and acceptance. Problem is, they will grow up. Santa's sleigh will take some of their taxes, which will seem like bullcrap. His followers would deny them rights and infringe upon their freedom. Nonsensical commandments laid out in The Ancient Holy Book Of Ho Ho Ho will be seen by his peers as a reasonable basis of morality. All while he fails to receive any substantial evidence of bloody Santa's existence.

As long as believers believe, they latently support organized religion which (by intention or not) works to bring civilization backwards. For each act of benevolence there's many more acts of hate, discrimination, mindless greed and lust for power. All the benefits of religion can be obtained by secular means. They might not be perfect, but they noticeably lack many of the nastry side effects.

I am an anti theist. I fight for not only the abolishment of religion, but also promote skepticism and rational thinking. Sure, there'll always be the metaphorical village idiot rolling around in the dirt hoping he'll produce bacon like his pigs, but I believe that the age of information we live in can help us leave behind old superstitions and work towards a better society and future.

This might all seem like pompous, condescending conjecture but I have to fall back on the basic request: empirical proof. What you stated in this thread about souls and whatnot is all personal anecdote which cannot be verified. Replace "God" with "Queen Morgan" and "soul" with "ley lines of Beer". Or with anything you want, really. The amount of evidence stays the same: 0. Not a good number to base such massive socio-economical influences on.

I let that one get to me and that's my fault. It's just that statement you tore apart, is sensitive material, it left me vulnerable, because it is so personal. I felt that spirit I mentioned at the passing of my cherished loved ones deathbeds and to me for you to make fun of it was disrespectful.

I understand you were just making your point and was not so much aware that I was speaking of the loss of my entire family.

Junebug- Respectfully, there is nothing more painful than the loss of a loved one. And those of us who have lost loved ones have a lot of triggers that re-ignite the pain at unexpected times.

I do not doubt the profound impact of the pain that you feel when you think about your loved ones deaths. But, again respectfully, I cannot help but feel[1] that you are being a bit emotionally manipulative here.

Let me recap what I saw. And you tell me if there is something that I am missing here. Jdawg expressed a concern with your use of the word "know."

Your use of the words 'opinion' and 'know' is a bit convoluted. Actually, it's really just the use of the word 'know'...perhaps you mean to say something like:"Does the body not release the spirit when it passes. I think it does, I have felt it."That jives a little better with a "I base my opinion, and that's all it is an opinion" view.

And then you responded with anger. And then, after receiving what appeared to me to be a genuine apology, you responded as if you had been victimized.

Now you come to an atheists forum, claim to KNOW stuff, that you admit can be supported only by your testimony, and then when someone calls you on the use of the word "know," and suggests that you are describing your belief or opinion, you act as if you had been attacked?

I've seen attacks on this forum. Some of them are pretty ugly and relentless. Some more subtle. There is no doubt that you have put up with a lot of folks dissecting your statements and asking you to defend your statements and asking you for evidence, and you have had a surprising amount of stamina. In all honesty, I think that there were other posters here who came down on you much harder than Jdawg. I genuinely don't know if the "know" question was really a huge trigger for you, whether his analysis was just the straw that broke the camel's back, or whether you have decided that the death of your loved ones is too taboo to discuss on these forums. Or whether you just put up with a whole lot of people ganging up on you, (and you have!) and you decided to see if you could evoke some sympathy. I really don't know.

And do you mind if I ask a question for clarification?

Are you offended that there are those of us here who do not consider the "knowledge" that you have of spirits, to be valid facts that cannot be questioned?

We all have our taboos. And those of us who have suffered pain have our triggers. But may I suggest that if there are subjects that are so sensitive to you, (such as the death of a loved one or your understanding of their spirits) it might be best to not bring these subjects up on an atheist forum, where you will certainly encounter people who do not consider your testimony to be satisfactory evidence.

This is why such a large % of this country is obese. What about the vegetables? And I mean fresh or frozen not canned!

Here in Europe we just use lots of horse meat. While animals are tasty and I wholeheartedly support eating them, my long years studying the heathen baby eating arts cannot agree with such an abomination.

I let that one get to me and that's my fault. It's just that statement you tore apart, is sensitive material, it left me vulnerable, because it is so personal. I felt that spirit I mentioned at the passing of my cherished loved ones deathbeds and to me for you to make fun of it was disrespectful.

I understand you were just making your point and was not so much aware that I was speaking of the loss of my entire family.

I am more than happy to dismiss this particular line of conversation in favor of a 'fresh-ish start' to discussion if you'd be interested in that. I do want to be very clear about something: I was in no way intending to 'make fun' of your feelings regarding a sensitive topic.

If there is a particular topic related to this thread thus far that you'd like to have a discussion about, we can do that.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

This is why such a large % of this country is obese. What about the vegetables? And I mean fresh or frozen not canned!

Here in Europe we just use lots of horse meat. While animals are tasty and I wholeheartedly support eating them, my long years studying the heathen baby eating arts cannot agree with such an abomination.

If God didn't want us to eat animals (and I suppose that extends to babies) He wouldn't have made them out of meat. But in order to be Heart Healthy you should follow the divided plate plan. 1/2 veggies and/or fruits; 1/4 starch; 1/4 protein (meat, babies, legumes...)

« Last Edit: April 12, 2013, 07:23:40 PM by LoriPinkAngel »

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.